sk000tch

I agree, quoting my prior post. I co-own a su-29 with an ex-eagle driver who got to play with 14’s. Dead give way is the wing sweep. They are great instantaneous through the first turn but need to go nose low to rate with an f-15, when the wings come forward the nose is going down. But its always going to come down to pilot

Sorry dude but your ms paint chart is shit. I've read maybe 100 POH in 23 years as a pilot and i've never seen a turn performance or Vn diagram that doesn't state drag and GW config and throttle/conditions. 10,000 ft at what drag index? What weight? Mil or AB? because its a pretty big friggin difference. F-16CJ manual I'm looking at has a clean f-16 @2200lb STD at sea level with max rate of 24.9 max AB @Ps -400 and 24.2 MIL at Ps-800. If you're talking zero SEP, Max AB is 21.3 d/s. I also take issue with any chart that has max rate at 10,000 ft then lists the speed at 600+ kts. And, even if I were for some reason that hot at the merge, max rate gives a radius of ~3200ft. Perhaps most absurd part however is that you're comparing radius between three jets, but you've got two at 600+ and the other at 450kts? What exactly do you think your chart shows? Or maybe you were talking about a different config? That's why we label charts in RL where people die. Oh !#&*^... I remember you now! You were the dude arguing GB and Lex about how to fly a Hornet! Remember that? Sk00tch remembers... btw angles fight? Glad you read Shaw, but that was when missiles with forward quarter capability were all the rage. Its a history book. Even in the never actually happens in real life guns only neutral set, at the 90 if we're two circle I do not give a damn about radius. I can trade angle for range/Vc anytime, the goal is to get offensive ASAP and that = rate. Radius is irrelevant. A 1-circle is different and beyond scope, much less forgiving and more variables. But that's the only time I care about radius, in which case I don't care about rate. I've making excursions, off plane, whatever TF i can to cross your tail. Hope you enjoyed your apology. Now apologize to the community for chasing most of the guys with actual jet time off the boards with crap like this

No. It’s getting into a time period that from everything I’ve observed about ED, and what I know about dealing with USML tech, they cannot model. There’s a million different viper configs (slight exaggeration), but 120D was generally coincident with 9X block II, SDBs, which was 3-4 years after ljdam, jassm. Iirc some ANG vipers and USMC legacy hornets were getting SABR upgrades around that time. You get into modern self protection suites, net centric datalink, enhanced mode 5 IFF, gen5 tactical interoperability upgrades to name a few that, well, let’s say that ‘DCS will not have the documentation necessary to accurately model.’ But ya know, actually DCS has been around a loooong time, has dedicated and passionate people that don’t plan on going anywhere. So maybe 10 years from now AESA will be 20 years old and DCS will be able to. Of course by then we’ll be pissed we can’t have the newest air launch hypersonic or directed energy missile defense system. So I guess maybe, eventually... but not in 2-weeks Honestly though man there is so much stuff they can do that will add more fun factor and make the game feel like a living, breathing theater. We have 1 ISR asset, 1 drone, no way to attack the C3 assets to degrade enemy ability to acquire/disseminate tactical information or force management capability. Of course, we would need that ability to be built first. I mean, integrated air defense with some 1970s era tactics would be a start... So, short answer- don’t stress it dude, shooting shit 100 miles away ain’t all that fun anyway. Modern battlefield has cool toys, but the more “pilot shit” takes a back seat to systems operator, the more time you spend head down than head up. Go listen to some dos gringos and drop some Mk 82s on some tanks

Damn dude... you could have saved me 45 minutes and some numb legs from tapping out that essay on the can. Ain’t easy reading EMs on a phone! I seem to be arguing in every thread so think I might be a bit irritable/bored. Injuries and illnesses have TFR’d me straight & level most of last few months

I'm not sure what you're talking about or disagreeing with. First I don't know what f3 is, i assume some previous sim. I am new to desktop sims, DCS is my first. I do have a couple thousand hours flying pointy things with wings. 450 is a fair rule of thumb I suppose but best performance is dependent on a lot of variables that will change that number significantly. Altitude, weight, drag from stores are the biggest, but a very cold day will knock a few degrees off your rate and decrease your radius by 10% or so as well. Rules of thumb are fine for people that don't want to memorize and/or learn the plane, but they are horrendously imprecise. Consider: Clean and light at sea level, best rate is 24 degrees at closer to 325 kts. Best Radius is a mere 1/4 mile at a near stall speed of 160kts. At 30k ft, with full(er) tanks and AA stores best rate drops to under 11 deg/sec at .9 mach, or roughly 530 kts. It will take you a mile to turn her around as well. At a more typical 10,000ft, with a reasonable config and fuel state, best rate is in the high teens at airspeed of 500-525kts. So, 450 is fine as a starting point, but it is just that- A starting point. This is all mil btw, everything changes in AB. Anyway, Im still not sure what issue you are taking with my post. My ipoint was that the chart was misleading. "Radius at max sustained rate" is an odd thing to chart in the first place. Why do I care about radius if I'm in a rate fight? It's not to scale, as if to exaggerate a meaningless difference. The data is wrong, the airspeeds unreasonable, etc., etc. As far as f-14 vs f-16, my money is and always will be on the pilot. Above all, hope you are the better pilot (or that f-14 is using rule of thumb airspeeds). Generally speaking, f-16 has the advantage in almost everything, even ignoring aim-9x vs. M's, likely incorrect assumption that DCS pilots can hold max rate in a 14 (she is a bit more tricky to handle than the FBW birds). Despite what everyone around here seems to think the 14 ain't all that in the vertical. If she goes out of plane it will almost always be downhill as she bleeds airspeed fast. After the first turn seems most will try to pull a viper downhill. Viper would be well advised not to follow, or get slow with the big cat. Keep speed and turning room as much as possible, watch for wings to sweep forward, at that point you should be able to get inside bubble, stay lag until stable on canopy, pull for lead and shoot her fat ass -- it's a big ass and pretty hard to miss.

Were talking Charlie’s here as you point out. I referenced the 35’s helmet as it’s so well known, and most everyone has seen vids, etc. But even the most modernized gen 4 doesn’t come close to replicating the functionality of the f-35’s. Never mind the whole “look through the plane” thing, it marks contacts from radar obviously, and MADL, but DAS is exceptional at picking up aircraft, missiles, ground fire, launch points, etc. The integrated night vision is massively better than any goggle based solution (green glow issues notwithstanding). Though there’s talk I don’t think any gen 4s have 3D audio integrated into self protection systems. Most of my post was about what we should expect to be modeled in the hornet, but looking back it wasn’t totally clear that I was talking about jhmcs circa early 2000s, it was just the first paragraph where I was talking about the 35’s hmds.

let me know when you've got a vr config ready tek. Or, if you could mount one 180 degrees opposed from your ICP, so I could just flip it when switching modules that'd be cool ;)

:huh:

As others have explained, you're confusing earmarks w/ production awards. 120D didn't come online until M6+, and took a bit before all functions of the missile were fully integrated. As much as I would enjoy playing, we ain't getting them. They were not deployed until M6, which had a lot of stuff in it. They are still playing games with range, which we know to be slightly more than twice the 120c (so, 100nm, with the normal grain of salt - 55k 1.5M launch). That said, it does have excellent range, it is the equal of the Phoenix in this respect. It is vastly improved in more important ways, however. Pk is still not published, they took 120A's from (i forget, we have good data on this?) around 65-ish% to an estimate 83-85% on 120Cs, 120Ds are a significant improvement... Range is not disclosed but well known as roughly double the Cs, real hush stuff is other areas. drtart looking for info on ECCM. Two way datalink is not an insignificant detail, nor is passive launch on IRST or datalink from awacs or buddy. AESA changed everything and the 120D arrived at the right time. FWIW - the same major tape that brought 120D also brought small diameter bombs, Laser Jdams, and actually, someone mentioned hobs, which is cool for 120s but the LOAL in the 9X-II are next level. A few missiles (Iris-t, asraam) are rumored to have got parthian shot capability at roughly the same time, but this is when we got the ability to employ all aspect missile against a target on your 6, at impressively close range. IIRC we got updated self protect/RWR then as well. US already has best spike management by a mile, the new suite of integrated self protection jamming (AESA can DECM in very targeted manned), coupled with rapid identification of incoming thread and migration.

I was chatting with him a little earlier, but as sniper got axed from the viper, given its importance to dual pod HTS (HTS can't dual pod litening), I would be surprised if the a-10 got it but viper didn't. One can hope, however. Most of the other hog changes were minor. Mode 5 per DOD reqs, couple toys for CSEL, IDM for video over SADL and other things, integrated self-protection suite that I doubt will work well (but maybe, Deka good start here). Remember, congress spent 10-years arguing about whether to retire it, so it didn't get much RDT&E appropriations. Still, most of this is quality of life stuff. I don't know details of the hotas/sensor workflow stuff. But the killer feature is gentex scorpion. ED knows that all of us would pay well for helmet cuing with SADL participant positions displayed. Honestly I am totally guessing here. Educated guess based on past experience and I could be totally wrong, but I just don't see big changes, more refinements, aside from helmet (or monocle, rather).

What else could they possibly upgrade? The only thing that was upgraded was the wings, suite 8, the current suite I believe, brought scorpion and IFF mode 5 (which isn't that big of a deal for us really). Relative to our model though, there's a slew of other useability in the hotas/avionics, and the helmet alone would be huge quality of life upgrade. All of the other talk never happened. No engines, etc. SDB and side looking SAR are still just plans. So again, what else could they change if the model is already upgraded free?

The problem is that HTS does not work with litening. HTS will work, but S7, which was widespread by our time frame, could not be dual pod with litening. Basic software compatibility but also litening lacked multiple target cueing, image processing algos for target categorizing and storage, self contained datalink, and zoom to perform wild weasel mission at acceptable ranges. Unfortunately that kinda sucks, but perhaps they will patch something together. Not sure what you're referring to with the MLU and 13/14s, Sniper ATP had 5x the effective range of lantirn. A 200m FOV at 50,000ft, beyond jet noise for even a lancer, is so drastically better than anything we have modelled that I question the games ability (or our hardware's) to render it. I suppose we'll see. Atlir is still planned for hornet right? IIRC that's ~50-60x flir zoom at twice the resolution of litening, so we'll see if its a hardware/software or documentation issue eventually.

Such is the case in all engagements (within reason - no HOBS, etc). Syndrome I could swear I wrote out a response to you but I don't see it. Either I flaked or a mod kindly removed the post (as opposed to me) for posting materials I should not have. I will send you a PM later. Apologies for that.

Umm so it's not going to be like scorpion or f-35. It won't show all friendly ground units, or everything airborne (much less integrate look through sensor, IRST, and everything else the $500k 35 helmet will do). It does some cool shit, however. Right now we have HOBS, which allows aim9x to be employed slaving the seeker head to the DAC. HAQC will function similarly for radar acquisition eventually. If an L&S exists, a TD box will display relative position of target. Depending on settings, Vc, Range, TOF of missiles, NIRD circle as in hud (Showing Rmax, Rne, Rmin, etc). Very useful is a verticor off the NIRD showing aspect. It will show and x for DT2, just as in the HUD. In AG MM, a diamond will display TGT location. If TGT is not in FOV, an arrow will display its direction. DAC can be used to slew TPOD or other sensors but is not sufficiently accurate for release consent. Just a quick way to get close to a vidsual target. Among its biggest benefits we already have. With no seat of the pants sensor, in BFM its nice to see airspeed and AoA. IRL may pilots will blank it to maintain tally, but for us in the sim its a different animal. In BVR it is more useful. Aspect, Vc and Range for targets with ATA outside HUD while keeping head up is great, useful for planning intercepts, hitting lat sep number, getting your turns right, are all excellent SA improvements. As are target locator lines in AG and the like. Again though, its not going to light up everything in the sky (or on the ground). Best to think of it as an extension of the HUD, as that is precisely what it is.

This and the follow up post on same topic are the DT1/DT2 method wags was using, it's not what most would recommend in most circumstances, but works quick well in raid assessment. Engage rapid assessment on L&S, designate DT2 on other escort or whatever, exist and swap via undesignate as needed in regards to employing. Frankly I can't' say that It's inaccurate, that might be how legacy hornets are. Guys don't tend to stay in raid and fixate. Take a look top understand the group and build tracks, get back out and sanitize for SA.

Jesus dude you are just making shit up. Edited you post to take out the incorrect things. Left the "AMRAAM engagement order number" because it's a really funny way to stay ranked trackfile. Which btw has nothing to do with RCR assessment (I don't actually know what RCR assessment is.. I googled it but all I could find is something about cardiology and heart health). Tracks are ranked according to whether: 1) they are designated L&S (always #1), 2) Tracks guiding a missile in flight, 3) range rate of closure and range, 4) co-speed are ranked by range, 5) AOT or tracks with unknown range are ranked by their azimuth distance off nose (essentially ATA) People seriously need to stop with the I think/probably/it should stuff. I don't understand the point. We aren't advocating for some design choice, they are modelling accuracy.. or trying to at least. People do use this as a resource and I can't count the number of times some crazy shit has been repeated and repeated because somebody just made it up. I don't think it helps anyone here to start discussing range gates, pulse intervals or waveforms. If you really want the physics PM and I'll send some links. Suffice to say a high PRF is pretty friggin bad at detecting range (though excellent at detecting high closure). Low PRF, like used in ground mapping, is damn good at assessing range but is slow. Radar can't xmit and listen at the same time, so a wideband waveform (as in rapid assessment) must directed at a small area or single target due to the extended dwell time necessary to allow integration of the purse returns. SAR and RAID both work on this same basic principle that as the radar emitter is moving, it gets a slightly different angle look at an object. In RAID assessment emitter and target are moving, thus very small differences can be resolved. None of this has anything to do with the question/answer we don't know - what undesignate button should do if pressed shortly after initiating a RAID assessment. I'm not a hornet driver, and don't know charlies well enough to know the quirky analogue not in the manual shit like this. Hopefully one of our ex-charlie pilots jumps in to answer the question at hand, but I don't think many hang out here any more. Too many people arguing with them about how the planes they actually flew worked, or whether you can flare a Hornet...

I can clarify somewhat but I have conflicting info on the behavior of undesignate during raid assessments. Wags original tws video focused on DT2 and swapping. I not sure why, except that it is useful for designating closing spaced targets in RAID. Like you, however, I also find stepping trackfiles via undesignate to be the easiest way to engage with multiple missiles quickly. It'd be great if one of the SME's would jump in with clarification but they may not be comfortable discussing the topic as certain details of RAID assessments, like their ability to discern rapidly accelerating objects without getting lose in clutter of compressor blades and such, might be grey. Frankly the "I think it should" posts are about as helpful as "I think the Hornet should supercruise at mach 2." Worse really, because they tend to get repeated and become lore. Anyway... raid assessment takes a variable amount of time to detect multiple contacts if they exist. Binary star bullsh&*? aside, raid assessments work similarly to the way synthetic aperture radar imaging works. RAID assessment unlike EXP changes the wave form and antenna scan. It uses a wide band wave to precisely discern changes in range (like SAR, except both emitter and target are moving). The time to detect depends on a number of variables, but having some cut will improve speed. Once the MC's have generated tracks, you should be able to step trackfiles via undesignate without being in RAID. What I am not sure about is how undesignate acts during assessment. From what I've been told it depends on whether the assessment has generated trackfiles and if other tracks have aged out, or it works much like the RTS functions we don't have yet (note these are also time dependent in their behavior). I don't like to state with certainty how something should act unless I'm sure, and i'm not sure in this case. EXP is correct though. The antenna and waveform do not change, it is literally a digital zoom. It will maintain tracks outside of your view as the azimuth and bar do not change. Thus, if the next highest rank trackfile is outside your current view, when you step it will recenter on that trackfile. For now, I think its helpful to think of it as building SA but not a targeting tool. Perform a RAID assessment if you suspect undetected bandits, HUC or mode 4 to accelerate trackfile generation if necessary. You're correct that you cannot change L&S in RAID, but you can designate DT2. If you're trying to pick out escorts or similar, the DT1/DT2 designate and swap method wags showed works well.

I friggin hate sounding like the old salt all the time but this pic illustration is crap. The data is wrong at least in part (I did not check, but doesn't look correct). But the entire premise conveys information that is at best misleading, and more likely harmful to inexperienced pilots. To the dude who posted it, you generally seemed like you didn't know - so this isn't directed at you. The 15 & 16 are doing about 200 kts more than the f-14. Yet the chart is titled "radius at max sustained rate." those are not best rates. Best rate for a viper at 10k is about 20 deg/sec, provided the pilot is at a more reasonable BFM speed of 450-500 kts. At that speed and load its radius drops to ~2300 ft radius as well. If its a radius fight the viper could conceivably bleed another couple hundred kts and drop that radius down to under 1800 ft. Otherwise 14 deg/s and 4k ft at 650 kts is pretty accurate. All of this "Will F-XX out turn F-xx" posts to be honest are pretty meaningless. I suspect few posters of those questions have the stick skills to hit those numbers, particularly in more difficult to fly planes like the f-14b. In my old salty opinion, most virtual pilots would do well do spend more time learning about turn circles and bubbles, pursuit types, WEZ, in/out of plane, 3/9 lines, visual cues on their canopy, and where the fuk they should be putting their lift vector, all while sustaining airspeed and flying with precision. Without time in type practicing and perfecting your BFM skills it doesn't matter what your flying, you're gonna lose.

As others have sorta said both are wrong. Supercruise is loosely defined, but typically requires a speed sufficient for tactical advantage. Transonic region is not supercruise, need to get up into 1.3 minimum, really 1.5... but its still cool. The viper will generally hit the numbers you mention though, its just not supercruise as it has come to be defined. Just like all aircraft limits decrease with gross weight. Hornet, viper, tomcat... Put a passenger in the back of an Su-29 aerobatic prop plane and max G drops from +/-12 to +/- 10.

hah nikkola I didn't realize you were referring to elevation, and had not had enough time with the system see the bug, hence my TWS 101 response In fairness I've had good experience with it, generally minor bugs and very effective so the comment you made about it being useless in combat I would still disagree with. But, I would not have gone on about scan volumes had I understood what you were talking about. Derailed indeed

Nominating this thread for dumbest honorable mention. I am embarrassed for my contribution on pg 4 observing how funny a Hornet flaring would be to me personally. I confess it is mere habit, as its something one does not see often. But seriously, I respect the "how do I fire aim-120" posts far more than the uppity "I read natops and CNATRA" sim warriors talking shit to those who've served, especially when they've got time in type we're talking about. A few years ago I got inducted into my college football hall of fame. It was a busy night but i was fortunate to be able to spend much of the night in the student section with my daughter and her friends. Three noodles behind us, with a collective mass of roughly 20lbs more than mine, spent the whole first half talking shit. Not about me, just clueless nonsense, one in particular apparently compelled to narrate the entire game. Again, busy night, so I wasn't able to rejoin my daughter until the 4th quarter. Remarkably, evidently recognizing me after the half time induction, the level of arrogance had decreased substantially. Drunk college men being among the dumbest of all creatures, these individuals were sharp enough to recognize that 35 starts on field is a lot different than regurgitated garbage read on some blog or defensive IQ gained playing Madden. I'm not hornet pilot, but I've been fortunate enough to have a career involved in aviation where I was privy to information about E/Fs primarily and spend my life flying, including PIC time in 4 DCS modules. I've got a decent amount of insight into legacy Hornets but I am certainly not going to disagree with one of the several guys who've posted here with 1000+ time in type. The FAA defines flare or round out as after stick, usually at idle, increasing AoA, for purpose of decreasing airspeed and VSI. Is adding power to maintain AOA w/i params while adding stick still flaring? Semantics IMO. I certainly have never seen a Hornet with engines at idle go after stick to 15 degrees and grease a rear wheel landing and airbrake another 1000ft. But guys with time in 18's are saying they can well, it seems odd but who the f am I to disagree? I maintain I would laugh my ass off if I saw it, but I won't disagree. Oddly enough E/F's are different, i have seen a pilot hold the nose up ala viper style, but Charlies? The notion that all planes can flare depends on how you define flare. Most planes decrease their vertical speed prior to landing, but flaring is a specific maneuver - aft stick. C-17s don't flare, they add power while maintaining constant AOA to decrease vertical speed. Per FAA that's not flaring. Other planes must be flared, but require 4 control inputs to do properly and will really test your stick and rudder skills. I learned to fly taildraggers in a decathalon - great plane, finicky with a ton of adverse yaw (like most taildraggers). In a crosswind its a handful. If not aligned perfectly on touchdown she might switch ends on you. Slip makes her fall like a rock and requires power to compensate, which increases P factor, which must be corrected for (in addition to adverse yaw). More that 50 fpm and you bounce, misaligned and you spin. Nobody would say you don't flare a decathlon, T-6 or P-51 or Su-26, but you flare with power, elevator, aileron and rudder. Fav post. After stick = nose up, increase AOA, decrease sink. Yes. Is true for ~3-4 seconds. W/o power you might find sink rate increase rather rapidly. Sorry for being a bitch, but this thread is just so damn full of stupid it hurts.

TWS requires more maintenance to employ effectively. Having a plan when you commit, having effectively sanitized, good meld procedures and adjusting volume for frame time. As range decreases, 4s is too much against maneuvering targets. You don't need, in fact you should not, stay at max scan volume at all times. That said, they have a few things to work on, but its a remarkably good first implementation IMO. I have only had a few minutes to check it out, but I'm surprised they got all the scan centering modes in with EXP and RAID. A couple things don't work quick right yet, and as you are experiencing the real MCs are better are maintaining tracks. But given the current implementation is struggling with vectors, which the MC uses to predict location, that makes sense (I don't know if that's how the game works, it has perfect info, so doesn't need to do the same guesswork). Three's a few things coming that will help. You're never going to engage 6 mig-29s, but strikers weighed down with tanks and anti-ship missiles? A 2-ship in formation is also ripe for TWS, frame time can be very short in that scenario. A flight with separation is more problematic, but that (and watching each other's 6) is why we use it. I think people haven't gotten used to working with ranked tracks and how L&S/DT2 cycling and swapping in the hornet works yet as we haven't had those tools and/or controls, or those that we have had we haven't had a reason to. Same with hotas controls for adjust bar scan, and azimuth with hotas. So its a bit slow to use a mouse (unless you've got MFDs). Still, with some practice and further refinement I think you'll be surprised.

So little off topic but speaking of auto gcas, good example of what I was talking about re not always sustained G. Warning to pilots this will give ya the willies, and thoughts of lost friends... But this kid blacks out at ~8G real quick, as usual goes nose down b/c bank angle, gets real fast, semi inverted, rapidly increasing dive angle and GCAS amazingly kicks in 2-3 seconds from a bad situation, immediately gets wings level pulls 9.1 at 700 kts to level off a little over 4k ft. Actually I don't think the rules let me post this. If interested, i'm sure google could find a vidua of Auto-GCAS Saves Unconscious F-16 Pilot—Declassified USAF Footage Absolutely amazing though. One of the best advancements in aviation in a long time.

Ya, I mean, not even close to the weirdest shit I've been caught... So I am digging that little bit of real world SA the off ear headphones on the Index provides though.

You might be surprised, AA missiles have surprisingly large warheads and most SAMs are smaller than you think. They need a lot more propellant to accelerate and climb, so AA missiles can dedicate much higher % of overall weight to warhead. Everyone seems to think the Phoenix is so deadly but its just a 60kg warhead, its got a bunch of fuel but only 10 kg larger warhead than the aim-120C's 50kg warhead, which has much better terminal guidance and fuze. The Sparrow on the other hand is nasty. It packs a serious punch at 90kg. The Python 5, in contrast, is small, at 10kg... 1/4 the size of 120b, but was designed to hit the cockpit, not engine or center of mass. Israelis got tired of shooting planes down only to watch them eject and come back in a new jet. Python 5's aim for pilots, not planes... SAMs like SA-10/S-300 are huge overall with around 150kg warhead. But again, consider the size of the missile. Much publicized s-400, has one variant with a tiny 20kg (IIRC) warhead that uses a directed explosion greatly increasing pK (there are variants with big warheads as well). Most of the long range SAMs are smaller warheads than Sparrows, and the mid-range stuff is generally around the same size or smaller than a sidewinder. Manpads are generally just a couple lbs or less, a round of GAU-8 30mm is about a pound IIIRC? Less explosive weight obviously and doesn't have prox fuze but interesting to think about. Sparrows are nasty though, not too many things will survive one. Remember the good ol' days when none of this mattered? Back before the Hornet or Viper when we flew around in titanium bathtubs? This thread made me look up an old Hoggit post where people were posting hogs with holes in em. Still learning the sim at the time but an experienced pilot. I had my head down fumbling trying to write down a 9 line with HMD falling off not paying attention to threat situation I flew right into (I think) Tunguska range with its nasty 10kg cont. rod warhead, which I took at least one of to the face, followed by jinking through multiple streams of shilka 23mm and the tunguska's 30mm, somehow still flying with multiple warnings on my six, one last shot most likely a SA-15 to the ass finally knocked out electronics. All tanks leaking, no control surfaces without holes, no rubber on tires, no electronics but the bathtub did its job. Should have belly landed but flared it both engines out flared halfway down the runway and must have touched down under 60 its. About 2 second rollout, somehow gear held. No ejecting necessary